259 Declaration of Commander Pierce

8/8/2019 259 Declaration of Commander Pierce

1/3

735

Plaintiff's Exhibit 259

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAEx rei. MICHAEL J. DEKORT, andMICHAEL J. DEKORT, individually,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-06-CV -1792-0Plaintiff, vs. INTEGRATED COAST GUARDSYSTEMS, A JOINT VENTURE,LOCKHEED MARTINCORPORATION, A JOINT VENTURE

PARTNER,

DECLARATION OF FRANK A. PIERCEand NORTHROP GRUMMAN, AJOINT VENTURE PARTNER

Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

DECLARATION OF FRANK A. PIERCEMy name is Frank A. Pierce and I am a Lieutenant Commander in the UnitedStates Coast Guard (USCG). I have testified in this matter on behalf of the USCG as aRule 30(b)(6) representative and I offer this declaration as a representative of the USCG.I have personally reviewed the document attached hereto as Exhibit A and declare the

following:I. The document attached hereto [and bates numbered CG9-9125-DOLSSO_0002469 - CG9-9125-DOLSSO_002688] is a true and correctcopy of USCG Contracting Officer Pamela Bible's December 28, 2007letter to Defendant ICGS and true and accurate copies of the threeenclosures to this letter: (I) Goverrunent's Position on ICGS' Response tothe 123 Revocation of Acceptance, (2) the USCG's Point by PointRebuttal of ICGS response to the USCG's revocation of eight (8) 123s("Point by Point"), and (3) Quantum.2. I reviewed the entire document including Enclosure 2, the Point by Point,to refresh my recollection in preparation for my deposition taken in theabove-referenced matter on May 25 -26, 2010.3. Everything stated in the entire attached Point by Point document is withinmy personal knowledge and reflected the Coast Guard's best analysis ofthe facts at that time. The ICGS Response on the left-hand column was

DECLARAnON OF FRANK A. PIERCE I259


2/3

736

directly copied from the lCGS response to the USCG revocation ofacceptance of the eight (8) l23s converted and delivered under theDeepwater contract.4. The assurances and representations by lCGS that the 123' WPB design

and calculations were correct, when they were not, and the representationsthat the 123s had been certified for ABS HSC 1997, when only part of thecutter had been certified, and the certifications that lCGS had compliedwith all the specifications and requirements of the contracts, when it hadnot, misled the USCG to its detriment. Had lCGS ' s assurances,representations and certifications been accurate and complete, the USCGwould not have allowed the 1101123 conversion to proceed until lCGSwas in proper contractual compliance.5. As important, the 123s failed to satisfy the Cutter Specific CertificationMatrix requirements, which required, by virtue of Sort 109, that the 123s

be reviewed by a third-party for "unrestricted service;" the USCG reliedon lCGS assurances that the cutter met or exceeded these standards in itsdecision for award and acceptance. Furthermore had the Sort 109 reviewindicated large cost or schedule differences in the capability to meet'unrestricted service' it may have chosen to the terminate the program.6. At this time, no contract dispute action, involving Integrated Coast GuardSystems ("ICGS"), Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, BollingerShipyards, or by any other subcontractor to lCGS, Northrop Grumman, orLockheed Martin, has been filed by or against the United States regardingthe United States' May 17 , 2007 and June 5, 2007, revocations of

acceptance of the eight (8) 123-ft patrol boats.7. The Defendants in Deepwater's 110/123s conversion process have failedto deliver 123s that satisfy the mandatory Performance Specifications ofthe contract. The 123s are incapable of performing any of the MissionRequirements set forth in Section 3, because they cannot be safelyoperated due to hull buckling, shaft misalignment and other classwideproblems unique to the 123s converted by the Defendants in this case.8. Finally, the Defendants haven't requested that they be allowed, at theircost, to fix the eight (8) inoperable 123 WPB cutters pursuant to theDefendants' contractual performance requirements. In addition, the cost tore-establish these platforms after 2 plus years of inaction would beunreasonably high. All eight (8) decommissioned 123s, presently mooredand inoperative in the Baltimore Yard of the United States Coast Guard,have little more than scrap value with exception of the propulsion plant,remain defective cutters and are of no use to the USCG.

DECLARAnON OF FRANK A. PIERCE 2


3/3

737

9. The position of the Government as stated in Enclosure I, theGovernment' s Position on lCGS' Response to the 123 Revocation ofAcceptance, has not changed and has not been re-evaluated .10. Enclosure 3, the Quantum, is a reasonable estimate of the damages

sustained by the US Coast Guard.I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July 19,2010.

DECLARAnON OF FRANK A. PIERCE

401.,. U

259 Declaration of Commander Pierce

Documents